In this section

TOPOGRAPHY

THE HONOUR AND CASTLE OF RICHMOND

The great honour subsequently known as the
honour of Richmond may be said to date from the
time when William the Conqueror gave an extensive
district in Yorkshire—some if not all of which had
belonged to Edwin Earl of Mercia—to his kinsman
and supporter Alan Rufus of Britanny in return for
his services at the Conquest. (fn. 1) The date of the grant
is uncertain, and no charter remains to bear witness
to it. The miniature preserved in the Register of
the honour (fn. 2) is clearly not a copy of a genuine
document and has the value only of representing tradition. (fn. 3) If, however, this tradition may be credited
the gift was made at the siege of York. The most
likely date in that case would seem to be 1069, (fn. 4)
when Edwin was still living, but had probably
forfeited his lands as a consequence of his rebellion
in 1068. If the evidence of the so-called charter
is inaccurate on this point as on others the grant
may have been delayed until after the death of
Edwin in 1071. It is clear, at all events, that
Count Alan was in possession of the district later
known as Richmondshire when the Survey of
1086 was made. (fn. 5) But no territorial entity of that
name is to be found in Domesday Book. The vast
possessions which were afterwards known as the
liberty, honour or earldom of Richmond are therein
described as 'the land of Count Alan' and the Yorkshire nucleus is divided under the two chief manors
of Gilling and Catterick. (fn. 6) The first mention of the
'honour of Richmond' does not occur until 1203, (fn. 7)
and in the early part of the 13th century it was
quite as often called the honour of Britanny. (fn. 8)

The full and permanent extent of the honour of
Richmond is probably given in Domesday Book.
But its limits cannot be established with absolute certainty until two difficult problems have been solved.

In the first place it is necessary to know if the
name 'Count Alan' represented one or more tenants
in chief. No less than three contemporary members
of the house of Britanny then bore the name of Alan.
One, Alan Fergant, was the reigning count; Alan
Rufus and Alan Niger were his cousins. (fn. 9) Until the
publication of the Recherches sur le Domesday in 1842
it seems to have been generally assumed that only
one of these was a tenant in chief of the Conqueror. (fn. 10)
The authors of that work (fn. 11) were, however, convinced
that all three occupied that position. They also
professed to know the exact territory which had been
assigned to each, (fn. 12) and their views have met with
some acceptance. (fn. 13) But they gave no reasons for their
assurance on this point, and there is evidence that
they erred in some at least of their conclusions. (fn. 14)
The older view that there was but one tenant
in chief of that name is the more acceptable, and,
pending further evidence to the contrary, the
extent of the honour of Richmond in 1086 may be
held to comprise all the territory attributed to him
in Domesday Book. In 1086 'Count Alan' held land
in Cambridge, Dorset, Essex, Hampshire, Lincolnshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire,
Nottinghamshire and Suffolk, as well as in Yorkshire. (fn. 15) These vast and widely-distributed territories
made him one of the chief landowners in England.
He had 199 manors in his Yorkshire castlery alone, (fn. 16)
and they formed less than half of the whole number.

It is also necessary to inquire how far the limits of
the honour were permanent. If an 'honour' is 'a
mass of lands which from of old have been held by a
single title,' (fn. 17) its extent cannot in strictness be variable.
The evidence of documents would at first sight seem
to show that the limits of the honour of Richmond
changed in some measure with the holder. But it is
clear that the tale of its lands set down in these documents is not always complete, (fn. 18) and also that other
lands belonging to various lords of the honour were
often loosely and inaccurately described as a part of it. (fn. 19)
On the whole therefore it is safe to conclude that an
honour could not be increased or decreased at will. (fn. 20)

In the Middle Ages the honour of Richmond was
usually in royal or semi-royal hands.

Arthur of Britanny. Ermine.

Alan Rufus, first lord of Richmond, was a
younger son of Eudes Count of Penthiévre and a
second cousin of the reigning Duke of Britanny. (fn. 21)
Through his grandmother Hawise, sister of Richard II
of Normandy, he could also claim relationship with
William the Conqueror. He was probably the builder
of Richmond Castle. He died in 1089 (fn. 22) and was
succeeded by his brother Alan Niger, who died
without issue about four years later. (fn. 23) The successor
of Alan Niger, Stephen Count of Penthiévre, is
usually believed to have been another brother. (fn. 24) He
died at Begar 13 April 1137 (not in 1144, as stated
in the 15th-century genealogy of the lords of Richmond) (fn. 25) and his heart was buried at York. (fn. 26) Stephen's
heir was his son Alan, (fn. 27) the third of Richmond, the
second to bear the surname of Niger. (fn. 28) This Alan
was notorious for his cruelty even in that cruel age.
He was a supporter of King Stephen against the
Empress Maud, and he is said to have tried to
avenge the king's capture at Lincoln by laying an
ambush for the Earl of Chester. Instead he was
himself taken prisoner and compelled by torture to
deliver up the county of Cornwall, which Stephen
had committed to his charge. (fn. 29) Through his marriage with Bertha, the daughter and heiress of his
second cousin Conan III of Britanny, he prepared
the way for the union of Britanny and Richmond. (fn. 30)
He was possibly the first lord of the honour to be
called Earl of Richmond, (fn. 31) but it is doubtful if he
was an earl in the true sense of the word at that
date. (fn. 32) In his charters he usually styled himself
Count of Britanny and England. (fn. 33) He died about
1146 (fn. 34) and was succeeded by his son Conan. (fn. 35) Conan
the Little, as he was called, (fn. 36) lacked both courage and
determination. In 1166, finding it difficult to defend
Britanny, which he had inherited in 1164, (fn. 37) against
his step-father Eudes Count of Porhoët, he betrothed
his infant daughter Constance to Geoffrey son of
Henry II and resigned his duchy to that ambitious
monarch. (fn. 38) As the reputed builder of Richmond
Keep, (fn. 39) Conan holds a prominent place in the
annals of the town. He was the first lord of the
honour to style himself Earl of Richmond (Richmundiae). (fn. 40) He married Margaret sister of Malcolm IV,
King of Scotland, and died in February 1170–1,
leaving as his sole heir his daughter Constance, (fn. 41) aged
about nine years. (fn. 42) For some twelve years after the
death of Earl Conan, Henry II, as her guardian, kept
the honour in his own hands. (fn. 43) Though he married
her to his son Geoffrey in 1181, (fn. 44) he did not apparently
relinquish Richmond until 1182 or 1183. (fn. 45) It is
not improbable, moreover, that he retained the castle
even after he had parted with the honour. (fn. 46) Geoffrey
of Anjou, Duke of Britanny and Earl of Richmond,
died in 1186, being killed in a tournament at
Paris. (fn. 47) The second husband of Constance, forced
upon her, it is said, by Henry II, in February
1187–8, was Ranulph de Blundevill Earl of
Chester. (fn. 48) In 1196, at the instigation of Richard I,
and while under the influence of jealousy, Ranulph
arrested his wife and kept her in prison for a year.
But when her son Arthur made peace with Richard
in 1197 she recovered her liberty (fn. 49) and not long
afterwards repudiated her second marriage. (fn. 50) Her
third husband, whom she
married in 1199, was Guy,
second son of William Vicomte
de Thouars; he survived her
some years. (fn. 51) Constance died
in 1201, leaving one son and
three daughters. Her son
Arthur and her daughter
Eleanor were the offspring of
her first marriage; her two
other daughters, Alice and
Catherine, the children of the
third. (fn. 52) Arthur, who, according to modern ideas of inheritance, should have been heir to the English
Crown, to Britanny and to Richmond, was murdered
in 1203 by his uncle John.

Ranulph of Chester. Azure three garbs or.

The history of the honour between the death of
Geoffrey and the accession of Henry III is rather
obscure. Constance appears, however, to have remained in more or less undisturbed possession while
she lived. (fn. 53) In December 1201, some three months
after her death, her widower Guy de Thouars was
undoubtedly recognized as tenant of the honour. (fn. 54)
Whether he held as guardian of Arthur or at farm does
not transpire. (fn. 55) At some uncertain date, moreover,
in the reign of John the 'Count of Britanny' (fn. 56)
obtained a writ exempting him from scutage. (fn. 57) In
1202 'Guy de Thouars, Count of Britanny,' received
a licence from the king to sell his wood of Richmond
on condition that half the proceeds went to the
Crown, (fn. 58) and on 2 April 1203 a ratification of the
farm which he paid annually from the honour. (fn. 59) On
the following day Arthur of Britanny disappeared and
his stepfather subsequently played a leading part in
the war against King John. (fn. 60) It is not surprising,
therefore, that the honour of Richmond was forfeit
in the following autumn. On 11 September the
king ordered one of the manors in Norfolk to be
delivered to the Bishop of Norwich (fn. 61) and eight days
later he announced that the whole land of Richmondshire as the Count of Britanny used to have it with
the forest and knights' fees had been granted to
Robert de Beaumont fourth Earl of Leicester, and
Geoffrey Fitz Peter was ordered to give him seisin. (fn. 62)
The Earl of Leicester died a few months later without
issue, (fn. 63) and his lands lapsed to the Crown. (fn. 64) In
March 1204–5 the Richmondshire portion was
granted with certain reservations to the Earl of
Chester (formerly husband of Constance). King
John retained 6½ knights' fees of Roald Constable of
Richmond and 3¼ fees of Henry son of Hervey. (fn. 65) It is
possible, therefore, that the documents which indicate
that the honour was held by the Crown almost to the
close of the reign refer to the
portion outside Richmondshire
and to the fees mentioned
only. (fn. 66) The Earl of Chester
appears at all events to have
had an interest in Richmondshire, probably in consideration
of his exceptional fidelity to
the Crown, (fn. 67) for many years
longer. (fn. 68) The castle was apparently in John's hands
throughout this period. (fn. 69) It
was perhaps the royal part
only (fn. 70) which the king offered
to Peter de Braine towards the close of his reign.
In 1215 John proposed to restore the honour to
the house of Britanny if Peter, who was then duke
in right of his wife Alice, elder daughter of Constance and Guy de Thouars, (fn. 71) would come to
England with horses and arms to aid him in his war
against the barons. (fn. 72) From later evidence it is clear
that a partition of the honour was then arranged. The
Earl of Chester seems to have kept his part of Richmondshire, while the southern portion of the honour
was divided between the king and Peter. (fn. 73) When,
however, Peter landed in England in 1217 he is said
to have come as an ally of Prince Louis, not of the
King of England, (fn. 74) and his wife's territory must have
been forfeit to the Crown. But Henry III (fn. 75) was
eager to buy his goodwill with grants from the honour
of Richmond, and in October 1217, after the conclusion of peace, he gave him the manor of Cheshunt
in Hertfordshire. (fn. 76) In November, on the other hand,
the land of the honour in the eastern counties was
bestowed upon Ranulf Earl of Chester. (fn. 77) In the
following month, however, the king resumed possession
of the demesnes in Norfolk and Suffolk, (fn. 78) and in January
he ordered that all those in the county of Lincoln,
except the knights' fees, were to be delivered to the Earl
of Chester and the seneschal of the Duke of Britanny
jointly. (fn. 79) Henry's next step was to order an extent
to be made of the demesne lands and an inquisition
into the knights' fees. (fn. 80) He then selected thirty fees
south of the Humber for his own use, (fn. 81) and Peter, after
undertaking not to claim any of the lands in this part
of the honour except those which had been assigned to
him, (fn. 82) received seisin of the rest in January 1218–19. (fn. 83)
The Earl of Chester apparently retained the Richmondshire part of the honour, but, by order of the
Crown, he surrendered to the Duke of Britanny
the castle guard of Richmond from fees south of the
Humber, obtaining in compensation £23 from the
issues of the market of Boston, Lincoln. (fn. 84) In March
1220–1 he was further compensated for 25 librates
of land which he had lost through the partition of
the honour. (fn. 85) The Duke of Britanny's portion of
the honour was temporarily confiscated in 1223
for omission to perform his military service with
the army in Wales. (fn. 86) A year later he forfeited it (fn. 87)
for the more serious offence of joining the French
king in an attack upon the English in Poitou and
Gascony. (fn. 88) But this breach between Henry and Peter
was, like the former, soon healed. Henry III wanted
the duke's aid for an invasion of France, while Peter
cherished the hope of rendering Britanny independent
of the French king with the help of the English. In
March 1224–5, therefore, Peter received a safe conduct
to England, (fn. 89) and in April Henry required him to
make immediate amends for his transgression of the
previous year in occupying the castle of Theobald
Crespin and doing homage to the King of the French. (fn. 90)
Peter appears to have satisfied Henry, for the order to
give him seisin of his lands in the counties of Lincoln,
Cambridge, Hertford, Norfolk and Suffolk was issued
in May of the same year. (fn. 91) The new alliance was
very close. In return for the support of the duke,
Henry promised to marry his daughter Yoland, and,
in the event of Peter losing his territory in France by
reason of this compact, to give him the whole honour
of Richmond, whoever might be in possession of its
lands. (fn. 92)

Peter of Britanny. Checky or and azure with a quarter ermine.

Later events suggest that Peter received the whole
of the honour about this time
or shortly afterwards. (fn. 93) If so,
he did not keep it long. After
the successful campaign in
Gascony he was compelled to
come to terms with Louis IX
at Vendôme in March
1226–7. (fn. 94) Regardless of his
pre-engagement to Henry III,
he betrothed Yoland to John
Duke of Anjou, brother of
the King of France, and was
in consequence once more
deprived of his lands in England. (fn. 95) Henry III is said to have bestowed them
upon his brother Richard Earl of Cornwall in 1227.
This statement would, however, seem to be erroneous,
and to have been due to a confusion between the
Duke of Britanny and his brother Robert Count of
Dreux, (fn. 96) In May of this year the Earl of Chester
received a grant of the whole of that part of the honour
of Richmond which he had formerly had from King
John. The grant was for life, unless the king should
admit the Duke of Britanny to his peace once more
or the Earl of Chester should recover the lands in
Normandy which he had lost in the service of John. (fn. 97)
In June the king appointed a custodian of all the duke's
lands and fees except the manor of Cheshunt, (fn. 98) which
he gave to the Bishop of Carlisle in the following month
to hold until it should be returned to Peter or his
heirs. (fn. 99) About the same time the manor of Washingborough in Lincolnshire was committed to the
Earl of Chester to be held during pleasure. (fn. 100) It is
clear from the temporary nature of these grants that
Henry III hoped for an early renewal of his alliance
with the Duke of Britanny. He needed his aid, as a
matter of fact, for another attempt to recover the
English possessions in France. In 1230, therefore,
he gave him back the honour of Richmond, and on
this occasion there can be little doubt that the grant
included Richmondshire. (fn. 101) The new enterprise was
not very successful, and after Henry's return to England
Peter, being deserted by his Breton vassals, was
compelled to ask Louis for a truce. (fn. 102) When it
expired, three years later, the King of France invaded
Britanny, and though Henry III sent aid to the
duke it proved inadequate. (fn. 103) In 1234 Peter was
obliged to make a complete submission to Louis, (fn. 104)
and for this he finally forfeited the honour of Richmond. (fn. 105) Henceforward he remained faithful to the
King of France, who permitted him to rule his duchy
until his son John came of age in 1237. (fn. 106) He seems
to have made no further attempt to recover Richmond,
and, having twice taken the cross, died at sea in
1250. (fn. 107)

Peter of Savoy. Gules a cross argent.

John I and II, Earls of Richmond. Checky or and azure with a quarter ermine and a border gules.

Henry III kept the honour of Richmond in his
own hands for a short time after its escheat in 1234. (fn. 108)
In September 1235, however, he granted Hinton in
Cambridgeshire to Alan de Nevill, (fn. 109) and in the
following year he committed the rest of the lands of
the Duke of Britanny to William Bishop-elect of
Valence, (fn. 110) an uncle of the queen, to hold during
pleasure. William died three years later, (fn. 111) and in
1240 the king gave the honour to Peter of Savoy, (fn. 112)
another uncle of Queen
Eleanor. (fn. 113) In 1242 John I
Duke of Britanny petitioned
for its restoration to his house.
Henry thereupon asked what
aid John and his father Peter
would give him towards the
recovery of his own rights if
he granted their request. (fn. 114) The
reply, if received, must have
been unfavourable, for in the
following year the king complained that the duke, by
attacks on the English at sea,
had broken the truce between England and France,
and he ordered the men of the Cinque Ports to be
ready for reprisals in case the duke refused to make
amends. (fn. 115) Friendly relations were restored by 1245
at latest. In that year a marriage was probably first
proposed between John, heir-apparent of Britanny,
and the king's daughter Beatrice, (fn. 116) and Henry undertook to give the former 2,000 marks a year in compensation for the honour of Richmond. (fn. 117) Fourteen
years later commissioners were appointed to arrange
the union, (fn. 118) and the Duke of Britanny once more
prayed for the restoration of his hereditary lands.
Henry expressed his readiness to comply with his
request if Peter of Savoy could be induced to relinquish the honour of his own free will. (fn. 119) Peter
evidently refused, whereupon Henry's former grant
of 2,000 marks a year in compensation was repeated.
Part of this sum was to be paid by the King of
France out of money due from the land of the
Agenais and the rest from the Exchequer. Meanwhile the honour of Richmond was to be extended,
and the grant was ultimately to be increased or
decreased in accordance with the value thus revealed. (fn. 120) The marriage between John of Britanny
and Beatrice had taken place in January 1259–60. (fn. 121)
The king thereupon obtained a quitclaim to the
honour from the Duke of Britanny, which he
promised should stand good in favour of Peter of
Savoy, undertaking at the same time not to disseise
Peter except with his consent and to remove the
existing limitation on his power to dispose of it. (fn. 122)
In 1262, therefore, he gave him the famous licence,
apparently unique in English history, (fn. 123) which enabled
him to bequeath it to whomsoever he would. (fn. 124)
Later in the year Peter restored to the king for the
use of Prince Edward certain manors in Norfolk and
Suffolk, part of the honour of Richmond, in exchange for the honour, castle and rape of Hastings
and other lands in Sussex. (fn. 125) During the constitutional
disturbances which followed Peter of Savoy seems to
have lost his lands for a time. In January 1263–4,
however, the king ordered that the issues therefrom
should be paid to him, (fn. 126) and in 1265 that the honour
of Richmond should be restored. (fn. 127) In the following
year Peter appears at last to have agreed to a complete
exchange of the honour, and an order was issued for
its restoration to the Duke of Britanny, (fn. 128) who immediately conveyed it to his son John. (fn. 129) But when
Peter of Savoy died in 1268 it was found that he
had bequeathed the honour to Queen Eleanor, and
the queen had to be compensated for her loss. (fn. 130)
John (II) of Britanny had already done homage for
the honour of Richmond, (fn. 131) and he now relinquished
all claim to compensation for it. On the day of this
surrender Henry III directed Prince Edward to order
the knights and free tenants of the earldom to render
obedience to John of Britanny, (fn. 132) and for twenty-six
years afterwards the honour of Richmond remained
in his possession. (fn. 133) In 1269 he obtained a licence
from the king to let certain lands and tenements
belonging to the honour to farm during his absence
in the Holy Land with Prince Edward. (fn. 134) In
January 1278–9 when going to Rome, and thence to
the Holy Land, (fn. 135) he received five years' exemption
from personal service with the king's army. He
became Duke of Britanny on the death of his father in
1286. (fn. 136) Three years later he was pardoned for failure
to do service in the last two
wars in Wales and acquitted
of £200 scutage for the same. (fn. 137)
When war broke out between
England and France in 1294
he found himself in the difficult position of owing fealty
to both combatants. Though
Edward I was his brotherin-law he took the part of
France, whereupon his lands
in England escheated to the
Crown. (fn. 138) They were, however, restored to him in April
1298, to be held during the
truce between England and
France. (fn. 139) In October of the same year he received
permission to levy the arrears which were due to him
before the war. (fn. 140) A year later he had a grant of all
the wardships in the earldom of Richmond that
had come into the king's hands during the war, (fn. 141) and
in 1300 he was acquitted of service in Scotland, the
king declaring himself well content with that of his
son. (fn. 142) The castle of Richmond and his lands were
finally restored to him in 1304 in conformity with
the terms of peace between England and France. (fn. 143)
On 14 November the following year, while assisting
at the coronation of Pope Clement V at Lyons, the
Duke of Britanny was mortally injured by the sudden
collapse of a wall which had been overburdened
with spectators. After his death, four days later, (fn. 144)
Edward I kept the honour in his own hands for
some months. (fn. 145)

John III and IV, Earls of Richmond. Checky or and azure with a quarter ermine and a border of ENGLAND.

John of Gaunt. The royal arms of EDWARD III with a label ermine.

John I and II of Montfort. Ermine plain.

Anne of Bohemia. Argent an eagle sable with two heads.

Nevill, Earl of Westmorland. Gules a saltire argent.

The new Duke of Britanny, Arthur, is said to
have petitioned for Richmond soon after his father's
death. (fn. 146) But Edward I, doubtless for political
reasons, preferred to give it to John, the late duke's
second son. He had, it seems, been educated at
the English court; he owed no dangerous allegiance
to the King of France, and he had already rendered
Edward service in Gascony and Scotland. (fn. 147) He
received a grant of the honour in 1306, (fn. 148) and for
many years afterwards he served Edward II as faithfully as he had served his
father, in Scotland, in Parliament, and as ambassador to
France. (fn. 149) In 1310 he received
a licence from Edward II
enabling him to grant all his
lands and tenements in England to his brother Arthur
Duke of Britanny. (fn. 150) Arthur
was licensed at the same time
to give them to John III, so
that if John died without
lawful issue they might revert
to Arthur and his heirs. (fn. 151) In
1322 John Earl of Richmond
was taken prisoner by the
Scots, (fn. 152) and only released two years later, when a heavy
ransom was exacted. (fn. 153) In 1325–6 he seems to have
given up the cause of Edward II as hopeless. Having
been sent on an embassy to France, he ignored the
king's summons to return and make a report. (fn. 154) Edward
thereupon complained to the pope of his infidelity
and confiscated his lands. (fn. 155) The queen's subsequent
victory brought him the restoration of his property. (fn. 156)
The rest of his life, however, he spent abroad, receiving from Edward III on more than one occasion
leave to postpone the homage due from him for the
honour of Richmond. (fn. 157) In November 1333 he
obtained from the Crown confirmation of a grant for
life of the honour and all his other lands in England
to his niece Mary (de Chatillon) Countess of Pembroke. (fn. 158) But immediately afterwards she acquitted
him of this obligation. (fn. 159) In January 1333–4 he
died, (fn. 160) and the honour fell into the king's hands. (fn. 161)
By March, however, Edward had decided to give it
to the earl's nephew and heir, John III (John IV
of Richmond), Duke of Britanny. (fn. 162) The duke did
fealty, paid relief, and received seisin in May. (fn. 163)
In July the escheators were commanded to pay
the duke the issues of these lands from the day
on which his fealty was taken. (fn. 164) The new lord of
Richmond received a respite from the payment of
Crown debts and reliefs on several occasions, and
seems to have remained on good terms with Edward III
throughout his life. (fn. 165) In 1341 he died, and the
honour of Richmond fell once more into the hands
of the Crown. (fn. 166) The claimants to the dukedom of
Britanny were the late duke's half-brother John I
Count of Montfort (fn. 167) and his niece Joan Countess of
Penthiévre, wife of Charles of Blois. (fn. 168) Edward III
made an alliance with the Count of Montfort, and
Philip of France, who supported Joan, (fn. 169) thereupon
seized the county of Montfort. Edward III then compensated John by giving him the earldom of Richmond to hold (fn. 170) until he obtained lands of equal value
in France. (fn. 171) John of Montfort was taken prisoner
at Nantes in December 1341 (fn. 172); by July Edward
had resumed possession of the honour, and, though
the count subsequently escaped to England, Richmond
was not given back to him. (fn. 173) In September 1342
Edward III created his infant
son, John of Gaunt, Earl of
Richmond, (fn. 174) and in November
the custody of the honour
was bestowed upon Queen
Philippa. The queen held
the honour as guardian of her
son for many years after this
date. (fn. 175) But John of Gaunt
himself came into full possession of it when he attained
his majority. (fn. 176) By this time
the Count of Montfort was
dead, and his claims had
passed to his son John II of
Montfort, who on 19 January 1359–60 surrendered
to John of Gaunt all his right in the honour. (fn. 177) For
twelve years after this date John of Gaunt remained
in undisturbed possession. In 1372 Edward III
was in close alliance with the Count of Montfort,
then recognized as Duke of Britanny by France as
well as by England, (fn. 178) and as the king desired to
restore the honour of Richmond to the house of
Britanny, John of Gaunt relinquished it in June,
receiving compensation in
rent and other lands. (fn. 179) The
honour was bestowed in
1373 upon the Duke of
Britanny and Joan Holand
his second wife, with reversion
to the Crown should they die
childless. (fn. 180) The new Earl of
Richmond was connected by
marriage with the royal family
of England. His first wife had
been Mary, fourth daughter
of Edward III; his second
was Joan daughter of Thomas
Earl of Kent, and, through
her mother, half-sister of Richard II. (fn. 181) The
duke was so impoverished by his adherence to the
cause of England against France that he was compelled to mortgage his lands in the county of
Richmond to John Lord Nevill, a burden from which
Richard II helped to release him as soon as he came
to the throne. (fn. 182) In 1378 he delivered up his castle
of Brest to the King of England, (fn. 183) receiving certain
manors in exchange. (fn. 184) For this offence the King
of France confiscated his duchy of Britanny. To
recover it John did homage to Charles V in
September 1381, (fn. 185) and was thereupon deprived of
the honour of Richmond, which by November 1381
at latest was in the possession of the English Crown. (fn. 186)
In the following year, however, there was a truce between Richard II and the
Duke of Britanny, and in 1383
the revenues of the earldom
were granted for a term to the
Duchess Joan. (fn. 187) But at the
close of the year John was again
described as an adherent of
the king's enemies, and the
honour was still Crown property. (fn. 188) In 1384, moreover,
it was declared by Parliament to
be legally forfeit because of the
duke's alliance with France, (fn. 189)
and before the end of the year Richard II granted
it to Queen Anne for life (fn. 190) as part of her dower. (fn. 191)

In April 1386 the Duke of Britanny was still an
'enemy.' (fn. 192) But a commissioner had already been
appointed by Richard to treat with him concerning the castle of Brest and the earldom of
Richmond. (fn. 193) As a result the honour was returned
to the duke to hold as fully as Queen Anne had
held it. (fn. 194) The new alliance must, however, have
been very short. The queen was evidently once
more in possession of the honour in 1388, for in
that year she leased her castles of Richmond and
Bowes and all her other possessions in Richmondshire
to Henry Fitz Hugh for twelve years. (fn. 195) In 1391
the castle, town and honour were restored to the
Duke of Britanny, and Queen Anne was promised in
compensation lands and tenements of equal value in
England and Wales. (fn. 196) But by the following year
the honour was apparently once more in the hands of
Queen Anne, who held it for the rest of her life. (fn. 197)
On the death of the queen, Richard II granted her
possessions to Thomas Archbishop of York, Edward
Earl of Rutland and Cork and John Earl of Salisbury in survivorship, (fn. 198) and in September 1395 the
two former as survivors leased the castles of Richmond
and Bowes and the rest of Richmondshire to Ralph
Nevill, lord of Raby, for a term of twelve years after
the expiration of Lord Fitz Hugh's lease. (fn. 199) In April
1396 King Richard ordered an inquiry to be made
into the wastes and dilapidations. (fn. 200) In 1398 the honour
of Richmond was granted to Joan widow of Ralph
Basset of Drayton and sister of the Duke of Britanny,
to Anthony Ricz and to Nicholas Alderwych. (fn. 201) Joan
and her brother appear to
have held the honour jointly
as a result of this grant. In
December of the same year
King Richard ordered the
rents from the lordship to be
returned to the Duke of
Britanny, (fn. 202) who in June 1399
was definitely stated to be
Earl of Richmond. (fn. 203)

Nevill, Earl of Salisbury and of Warwick. Gules a saltire argent with a label gobony argent and azure.

Edmund of Hadham. FRANCE and ENGLAND quarterly in a border azure with martlets and fleurs de lis or alternately.

When in October 1399 (fn. 204)
the new king, Henry IV,
granted the honour to Ralph
Earl of Westmorland, (fn. 205) the
long and troublesome connexion of Britanny and Richmond was broken at
last. The Earl of Westmorland kept the lands
(though he never had the title) for his life. (fn. 206) But
in 1414 Henry V granted the reversion of it,
together with the title, to his brother John Duke of
Bedford, (fn. 207) and upon the Earl of Westmorland's
death in 1425 (fn. 208) the duke entered into possession. (fn. 209)
The Duke of Bedford died in 1435 (fn. 210) without
male issue surviving, whereupon the honour once
more lapsed to the Crown. (fn. 211)
For many years afterwards
Henry VI kept it more or
less in his own hands. During this time he made many
grants of offices, annuities,
manors, liberties and lands in
the honour, (fn. 212) the most important of which was the
grant to Richard Earl of
Salisbury, father of the Kingmaker, of two parts of the
castle, of the knights' fees and
castle ward pertaining thereto,
and of the mill and dye-works
of Richmond in tail-male,
with the reversion of the third part, then held by
Jacquetta Duchess of Bedford in dower. (fn. 213) In the
Act of Resumption of 1455 the claims of the Earl
of Salisbury were carefully
safeguarded, but the king reserved to himself the castle
and town of Richmond and
the fee farm after the deaths
of the said earl and of his son
Richard Earl of Warwick. (fn. 214)
Before this date the honour
of Richmond had already
been given to Edmund of
Hadham, half-brother of
Henry VI. (fn. 215) He was created
Earl of Richmond in March
1452–3 and received at the
same time a grant to himself
and his issue male of the
whole county, honour, and
lordship, with the castle, vill
and all reversions. (fn. 216) He died in November 1456
possessed of two parts of the honour and lordship of
Richmond and the reversion of the third part. His
heir was an infant son, the Henry Tudor who afterwards became King of England. (fn. 217)

George, Duke of Clarence. FRANCE and ENGLAND with the difference of a label argent having on each pendant a quarter gules.

When Edward IV ascended the throne he took
possession of the honour of Richmond. At first he
was to all appearance holding it merely as the guardian
of Henry. (fn. 218) But the young Earl of Richmond belonged by birth to the Lancastrian party and Edward IV
soon began to treat the honour as his own property.
In August 1462 he bestowed the castle, county and
honour upon his younger brother Richard Duke of
Gloucester and his issue. (fn. 219) The grant cannot, however, have been executed, for in the following month
an exactly similar gift was made to the king's other
brother George Duke of
Clarence, (fn. 220) and it is clear from
later documents that the Duke
of Clarence was actually in
possession. (fn. 221) The victory of
Henry VI in 1470 doubtless
involved a confiscation of the
honour, for the subsequent
return of Edward IV meant
a renewed grant to the Duke
of Clarence. On this occasion
it was given to him for life
only. (fn. 222) In August 1472 the
duke also received a licence
to enter freely into the part
of the honour which had been
held by the Duchess of Bedford, deceased, in dower. (fn. 223)
Two years later, when Henry VI was dead and
Edward IV finally established on the throne, the
grant of the honour to the Duke of Clarence was
repeated, and on this occasion it was to be held in
tail-male. (fn. 224) In 1475 the duke was licensed to make
a settlement of the honour as he was about to cross
the sea on the king's service. (fn. 225) Three years later,
however, he was attainted and executed and the
honour was again forfeit to the Crown. (fn. 226) In March
1477–8 Richard Duke of Gloucester, the king's
brother, received a grant of the castle of Richmond,
the fee farm of the town and liberties in Richmondshire. (fn. 227) He had in 1475 been given a mill at
Richmond and the knights' fees and castle ward
belonging to the castle, and all other premises formerly
held by the Kingmaker. (fn. 228)

Edward IV appears to have kept the rest of the
honour in his own hands for the remainder of
his life. (fn. 229) Richard III also held it, (fn. 230) and he, doubtless, made his possession of it the more secure by the
Act of Attainder which was passed against 'Henry
callyng himself Erle of Richemound' in 1483. (fn. 231)
With the accession of this same Henry to the throne
in 1485 the honour was restored to the Tudors and
their heirs. It was, indeed, only separated from the
Crown once more.

Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond. The royal arms of HENRY VIII with the difference of a sinister baston argent in a border quarterly ermine and checky or and azure and over all a scutcheon quarterly gules and vairy or and vert a lion argent and a chief with a castle between two harts' heads caboshed or therein.

In 1525 Henry VIII bestowed the title of Duke
of Richmond upon his illegitimate son Henry
Fitzroy. (fn. 232) The young duke seems to have been,
in name at least, lord of the honour (fn. 233) also, but
Henry VIII was probably holding it as guardian
during this time. By 1532 the king had recovered
entire possession, having apparently effected an exchange with his son, (fn. 234) and the honour of Richmond
has ever since remained the property of the Crown.

The castle has, however, had a different history.
In 1623, when James I created Ludovic Stuart,
Lord Lennox, Duke of Richmond, he also gave him
the site of the castle. (fn. 235) The duke died a few
months later, leaving no lawful heir, whereupon the
castle again reverted to the Crown. In 1641 it was
granted by Charles I to James Stuart Earl of Lennox,
with special remainder to the heirs male of his
younger brother. (fn. 236) But in 1672, on the death of
Charles fifth Duke of Richmond without issue, (fn. 237) it
passed once more into the possession of the Crown.
Charles II did not retain it long. He gave it in
1675 to his illegitimate son
Charles Lennox, whom he
created at the same time Duke
of Richmond, (fn. 238) and from him
it has descended in the direct
male line to the present Duke
of Richmond and Gordon.
With the consent of the duke
the castle was taken over in
1910 by H.M. Office of
Works under the Ancient
Monuments Protection Acts,
and it is now being repaired.
For many years past the War
Office has been permitted to
make use of it for military
purposes. (fn. 239)

Stuart, Duke of Richmond. Or a fesse checky argent and azure with a border gules and eight buckles or thereon.

Lennox, Duke of Richmond and Gordon. The royal arms of CHARLES II with the difference of a border gobony argent and gules with roses gules in the argent, and over all a scutcheon gules with three buckles or, for Aubigny.

At the close of the 12th century the honour of
Richmond was assessed at 140 knights' fees, (fn. 240) of
which fifty seem to have belonged to Richmondshire. (fn. 241) But in the latter part of the 13th century
Peter of Savoy stated that he was holding the honour
by the service of five knights only. (fn. 242) He and his
contemporaries had by this time clearly 'succeeded
in effecting a very large reduction in the number of
fees for which they answered to the king.' (fn. 243)

It is difficult to say what liberties the holders of
Richmond held of ancient right as lords of the
honour and what by separate grants, for the frequent
escheats of the honour gave the Kings of England
unusual opportunities for claiming that old liberties
were forfeit and renewable only by royal favour.
The lords of Richmond enjoyed among other liberties
return of writs (fn. 244) and execution of the same, (fn. 245)placita
de namio vetito, (fn. 246) free warren (fn. 247) and view of frankpledge. (fn. 248) In the reign of Edward I the Earl of
Richmond claimed to have infangentheof throughout
the whole liberty of Richmondshire and a gallows at
Richmond and Bowes (fn. 249); they had also outfangentheof. (fn. 250) The tenants of the honour were said, in
the 13th century, to be free of the shire court and of
common amercement. (fn. 251) They were also quit of toll
throughout England and claimed to have been so
since the Conquest. (fn. 252)

A 'Court of Richmond' is mentioned in the
beginning of the 13th century. The court leet is
first mentioned in 1341 when it was being held
every three weeks and was worth 20s. annually and
no more, owing to the poverty of the inhabitants. (fn. 253)

In the 16th century the tenants of Richmondshire claimed to hold their estates by border service
and to have a tenant-right of renewal. Though the
Lord Treasurer, on behalf of Queen Elizabeth, maintained that there was no record of such a right, the
Earl of Northumberland, as steward of Richmondshire,
was 'importunate' on the tenants' behalf, (fn. 254) and he
eventually obtained from the queen some recognition
of their custom. In 1565, 'on account of the pretended title of tenants' rights,' Elizabeth agreed to
let the land in the lordships of Middleham and
Richmond on customary leases for forty years, two
years' rent being paid as a 'gressom' on the death
of every prince and every tenant. All repairs were
to be done by the tenant, who was also to find a
horse and armour when required for border service.
Eldest sons were to have the preference in leases. (fn. 255)
Lands of 40s. in value and under might be let by
copy of Court Roll. (fn. 256) Since the tenants, according
to report, had formerly paid 1d. fine on the death of
lord or tenant, this arrangement would seem to have
been, as indeed it was said to be at a rather later
date, 'a very greate improvement and augmentacion
to the Revenewe of the Crowne.' (fn. 257)

Castle

According to the 14th-century Genealogia of the lords of Richmond,
Alan Rufus began to make a stronghold
here, (fn. 258) and this statement has usually been accepted
as correct. But the early poem which contains the
first mention of it yet discovered says that William
the Conqueror gave Count Alan Richmond 'a good
castle fair and strong.' (fn. 259) This statement may, however, be due to poetic licence. The castle is not
mentioned in Domesday Book, but there is a
reference to Count Alan's 'castlery,' which suggests
that it was already in existence at that date, (fn. 260) and
the architectural evidence carries it almost as far back
as his time. It is possible, moreover, that the grant
of the castle chapel to the abbey of St. Mary, York,
was made by Alan Rufus, but the evidence on this
point is ambiguous and the chapel may have been
the gift of Count Stephen. (fn. 261) The keep is said to
have been begun by Earl Conan. If so it was probably completed by Henry II. (fn. 262) In 1206, 1209 and
1212 King John visited Richmond; in 1216 he
ordered the Earl of Chester to demolish the castle of
Richmond if he could not hold it, but such extreme
measures were clearly unnecessary. (fn. 263) In 1278 six
chaplains were appointed to pray in the chapel of the
castle for the souls of John [Earl] of Richmond and
Beatrice his wife. (fn. 264) Considerable repairs were done
in 1294–5, when planks were obtained for the drawbridge and stone for the gateway and keep; an order
for further repairs was issued in 1297, (fn. 265) but the
castle was apparently already in a state of dilapidation before the middle of the next century. (fn. 266) Leland
described it as a 'mere ruine' in his time. (fn. 267) It
included in 1538, among other things, the port
lodge, the inner-gate house, 'the sware house, the
mantill wall' and five turrets, 'the great dongeon,'
two wells, the hall, pantry, buttery, kitchen and
other offices, the privy chamber, a little tower for
'draughtes,' the great chamber, a chapel next it, and
a chapel in the castle garth. Evidently the masonry
and timber were much decayed at this time. (fn. 268)

Richmond Castle

Richmond Castle played little part in history. It
served as a prison for the district, (fn. 269) and if used for
public purposes it was as a place of confinement for
prisoners of war, William the Lion, King of Scotland, being imprisoned there in 1174 and ten Welsh
hostages in 1295. (fn. 270) It is possible that Richmond
Castle saw some actual fighting against the Scots at
the close of the 13th or the beginning of the 14th
century. (fn. 271) It seems to have played no part in the
Wars of the Roses or the Civil War. The castle
occupies a site of great strength, with a steep fall
to the River Swale on the south, and more gradual
slopes on the east and west; the part of the town
lying to the north is completely dominated by the
keep. The main entrance is from the north,
through a small outer court or barbican, from which
a gate opens to the principal court, a large triangular
area, with its base on the cliffs above the river,
containing nearly 4 acres. To the south-east is a
second and smaller court, at a lower level, now
known as the cockpit and entered by a gateway on
the north-west.

The massive curtain wall surrounding the principal
court remains in a very fair state of preservation,
except on the south or river front where a great deal
has fallen or been cut down, and on the west where
a length of it has been destroyed. It is of exceptional
interest from the early character of its masonry, which
is particularly evident on the west side, in the courses
of herringbone, and there can be little doubt that it
dates from the time of Alan of Britanny. Nor is the
early work confined to the wall; the tower known as
Robin Hood's Tower and the Gold Hole Tower,
together with Scolland's Hall and the building east
of it, in the south-east angle of the castle, all belong
to the 11th century, and the arch leading into the
basement of the keep is the arch of the original gateway of the castle and probably had a gatehouse on the
inner side. The keep itself dates from c. 1150, and its
addition closed this gateway, another being made in
the curtain wall immediately to the east of the keep.

The later buildings of the castle, being less massive
than those already mentioned, have for the most part
been destroyed; the gateway to the south-east court
is of later 12th-century date, and the walls of this
court are probably in part coeval with it, while the
range of buildings along the curtain to the north of
Scolland's Hall are of late 13th-century date.

The 14th-century drawing of Richmond Castle,
reproduced in Gale's Register of the Honour of Richmond,
shows in a sufficiently realistic way several of the
buildings now destroyed and gives notes by which
they may be identified. The kitchen and brew-house
are shown as set against the south wall, towards the
west, and the 'larger chapel of the canons on the
walls' is also shown further to the west on the same
wall, though it is more probable that its actual site is
marked by the large blocked round-headed archway
in the west curtain. At the south-west angle of the
castle was and still is a small square tower, which is
probably 13th-century work. The whole of the
area of the principal court has been levelled and
turfed, and on the west side runs a range of modern
buildings used as military quarters.

Castle, Richmond

The barbican through which the main gate of the
castle is reached has lost practically all its old walls,
and its outer gate with the flanking turrets shown in
the drawing referred to is quite destroyed. The
entrance to the great court is also modernized, and is
flanked on the east by modern work. Southward
from this along the wall is the small rectangular
tower known as Robin Hood's Tower; it is of three
stories, the topmost being ruined; this is of later
date than the rest, and seems to be late 13th-century
work, but the two lower stories are part of the
original 11th-century building, and both are roofed
with barrel vaults in stone. The upper of the two
has no remarkable features, but the lower is the
chapel of St. Nicholas and has at the east a roundheaded altar recess 4 ft. 6 in. wide by 2 ft. 4 in. deep,
lighted by a narrow round-headed window, while on
either side of the recess are small circular double
splayed windows. The entrance door is at the
south-west, and the north, south and west walls are
ornamented with an arcade of plain round-headed
arches with early cushion capitals from which the
arches spring without an abacus: the shafts and bases
are gone, and the floor is now covered with some
18 in. of rubbish. Between this tower and the next,
which is completely ruined and broken away from the
wall, is a small passage through the wall, and there are
other openings at present covered by the piling of
earth against the inner wall face. This part of the
curtain is in a very unsafe condition and leans outward
in several places; near the Robin Hood tower this
failure has been corrected by the very inadequate
process of cutting back the wall face to a vertical line.
South of the site of the second tower, now marked
by a gap in the wall, the north wall of the second
court abuts against the curtain, the latter being here
preserved nearly entire, the level of the alure and the
lower parts of the battlements being yet to be seen.
The remains of late 13th-century buildings here set
against the wall are much damaged, but evidence of
two stories exists, and the upper story of one room
was clearly a chapel, the piscina remaining in the
south wall; this chapel must have been lighted
entirely from the west.

Richmond Castle: Scolland's Hall

Richmond Castle: St. Nicholas's Chapel

The group of buildings adjoining, at the southeast angle of the castle, is of the greatest interest.
It formed the living rooms of the lord of the castle,
his hall, solar, &c., and had at the west the domestic
offices, now destroyed. In spite of alterations and
evident traces of burning, great part of the work
is of 11th-century date, the hall, known as Scolland's
Hall, being a very remarkable survival, earlier than
anything else of its kind in the country. It had a
basement, lighted on the south by rectangular slits,
through which a wooden hoard along the outer
face of the wall could be reached, and on the upper
floor was the hall proper, entered from the northwest by a round-headed doorway with shafted jambs
and roll-moulded inner order, the roll being returned
in a curious way round the sill. The foundations of
a large porch, from which steps led up to this doorway, have recently been uncovered. It appears to be
12th-century work, and perhaps replaced an original
wooden stairway. The capitals have the classic block
under the abacus, and angle volutes, with foliage on
the lower half of the bell. The hall was lighted by
a range of windows on each side, of which those on
the north side appear to be original work, while
those on the south have probably been rebuilt with
the outer wall late in the 12th century, to which
date belong the remains of the cornice which crowns
the walls. The windows are of two round-headed
lights with a central circular shaft, and half-round
shafts in the jambs which have neither base nor
capital and are carried round the soffit of the head.
The central shaft has a plain chamfered base and
cubical capital, with a square chamfered abacus which
has either been cut away on the inside for the fitting
of shutters or has never had an inner return. There
is no rebate for a frame in the windows, and their
inner jambs are square through the wall, with a semicircular rear arch. Many of the shafts and capitals
are now missing. At the west end of the hall is a
round-headed doorway, originally opening towards
the offices, of which only the south wall remains, and
ffanked by two other openings broken through the
wall at a later date. In the north-west corner was a
newel stair, of which very little now remains. At the
east end of the hall are two stories of rooms of original
work, but showing many traces of fire and subsequent
alteration, and the cellar adjoining them on the west
is at a lower level than the rest of the ground floor of
the hall and evidently had rooms over it. It formed
a passage of communication with the second court,
having a large doorway in its north wall; the
entrance to the second court being in the east
curtain, flanked by barrel-vaulted rooms. The Gold
Hole Tower, immediately to the north, and projecting from the curtain wall, is in its lower part of
11th-century date, while the upper part is 14thcentury work.

The recent excavations have revealed the position
of the former entrance to the great hall. The doorway at the west end of the north wall appears to
have opened on to an external platform 19 ft. 3 in.
by 13 ft. 6 in. and approached by a flight of stone
steps on the north. The two lowest of these steps
still exist, but only the base of the platform remains,
and, while the latter is later in date than the hall, the
staircase is evidently a still more recent addition.
Adjoining the hall at the west end was an apartment
some 23 ft. long by 24 ft. 6 in. wide, of which the
northern wall has been uncovered. It was entered
by a large door in the centre of this side, of one plain
chamfered order, and the same wall was continued
westward, parallel to the outer curtain, and implying
a continuous range of buildings on this side.

The rest of the south front of the castle has lost all
evidence of the buildings. kitchen and brew-house.
which were built against it, but the square tower at
the south-west angle remains in good condition. To
the north of it a large round-headed arch in the west
curtain marks the site of a building, probably the
'capella major' already mentioned, in which case
the arch must have spanned a western recess like that
in the chapel of Farnham Castle in Surrey. At this
point the curtain wall is well preserved, but further
north it has been much mutilated, and is in places
represented only by a thin boundary wall of brick.
Near the keep it is better preserved, and the entrance
to the basement of the keep is by a fine roundheaded arch of 11 ft. 3 in. span towards the court
and 10 ft. towards the outside. This has been the
outer gateway of an original gatehouse, and has pairs
of engaged shafts on the inner and outer faces, with
plain or foliate capitals of the same early character as
those in Scolland's Hall. A curious detail is that the
capitals and bases of the east jamb are at a lower level
than those of the west.

The south wall of the keep is built on the
11th-century curtain, but its other three walls are of
one date from the ground. It measures 45 ft. by
52 ft. by about 100 ft. high, and, owing to its situation and somewhat slender proportions, gives a great
impression of loftiness. It is in four stories, the
lowest having an inserted stone vault of the 14th century, the central pillar of which is a circular wellshaft coeval with the keep, like that in the keep of
Rochester Castle. The second stage has a central
stone pillar of much smaller size, carrying a wooden
floor. There is a stone newel stair, also an insertion,
in the south-west angle of the ground story, and above
this point the stair to the top of the tower consists of
straight flights in the thickness of the south wall,
lighted by narrow round-headed windows. The
entrance to this staircase from the curtain is at the
south-east corner of the second stage and another at
the south-west, and in the third stage is a blocked
doorway at the south-west, but in the south face. In
the third stage are wall-chambers on the east and
west, but the north wall is solid up to the fourth stage.
The elevations are very simple, with shallow clasping
buttresses at the angles, dying on to the plinth, two
intermediate buttresses on the north and south faces,
and one on the east and west faces. The keep
finishes with battlements, those at the angles rising
higher than the rest. There is no fireplace in the
keep and no garderobe.

Footnotes

1. Lestorie des Engles (Rolls Ser.), 11.
5315–26. It cannot be said to have
originated earlier, because it is not clear that
this district had previously formed a single
honour. The tradition that it had once
belonged to Edwin is probably correct,
but there is no contemporary evidence to
support it other than the grouping in
Domesday of Count Alan's manors under
two which are stated to have belonged to
Earl Edwin (Dom. Bk. Yorks. [Facsimile
ed. 1862], fol. 85). Moreover, it did not
include all Edwin's land (see below, n. 3
[b]), nor was all the land of the honour
south of the Trent his.

3. This conclusion is based upon several
considerations:—
(a) William's style 'cognomine bastardus,' is to say the least unusual. Gale
claimed to have seen over a hundred
charters of the Conqueror, in no one of
which he so described himself (ibid. App.
225). Gale is supported by the numerous
charters of William I printed in Mr.
Round's Cal. of Doc. France. Rex Anglie
was not used until the close of the 12th
century.
(b) The substance is incorrect. Count
Alan could not have received all Earl
Edwin's lands in Yorkshire as therein
stated, for Ilbert de Laci and Roger de
Busli were holding some in chief at the
time of the Survey (Dom. Bk. Fac. 35,
43). But there could be no object in
forging a charter for a gift of which
Domesday Book affords ample proof (cf.
Eyton, Dom. Studies [Staffordshire], 31).
This cannot be called a deliberate forgery,
but merely a pictorial representation of
an actual grant.

4. William marched on York to suppress
rebellions in 1068 and twice in 1069.

14. They attributed the land in Herts.,
Cambs., Northants, Notts., Lincs., and
some manors in Yorks. (all the manors
apparently which had not belonged to Earl
Edwin) to Alan Fergant. But the charters
of St. Mary's Abbey, York, show that Alan
Rufus held land in Lincs., for he gave the
church of St. Botolph in Boston to the abbey
(Dugdale, Mon. iii, 531, 547–8), while
Alan Niger (probably as his successor) gave
to the same abbey the tithes of Bassingbourn in Cambs. (ibid. 548). Mr. Round,
moreover, identifies the ' Count Alan' of
the Northants Domesday as 'of Richmond'
(V.C.H. Northants, i, 303), and evidently
considers the count of that name who
held land in Essex, Suffolk, Herts. and
Cambs. as one and the same person
(V.C.H. Essex, i, 350). In the account
of Alan Fergant given by Anselme in
his Hist. de la Maison Royale de France,
iii, 49, 52, he says nothing about his
accompanying William to the conquest of
England or receiving land from him as
the reward of his services, and Lobineau
omits all mention of Alan Niger when
enumerating the sons of Eudes who went
with the Conqueror (Hist. de Bretagne, i,
98). He gives two only: Alan Rufus
and Brian. Gale, however, adds Alan
Niger and Ribald (Reg. Honoris de Richmond, Introd. p. i). The close association
of Count Alan with either the Count
of Mortain or Earl Hugh or both, not
only in Domesday Book but also as
a witness to the royal charters of this
period (cf. Mr. Round's Cal. of Doc.
France), supports the view that the name
represented one man only. In every
county in which Count Alan held land, with
the exception of Essex, Earl Hugh was
a landowner, while the Count of Mortain
held land in all but Essex and Lincs.
Finally, the frequent occurrence of the
title without any distinctive suffix would
suggest that the Conqueror could have
had only one tenant-in-chief of that
name. Much stress cannot, however,
be laid on the silence of Domesday in
this respect.

15. See Dom. Bk. Fac. passim. All these
territories, if not originally in the hands
of one member of the house of Britanny,
must have been united about the middle
of the 12th century through the marriage
of Alan III of Richmond with the heiress
of Britanny. She was descended from
Alan Fergant. The portion of Alan
Niger, if he had one, would have fallen
in when he succeeded his brother Alan
Rufus in 1089.

17. The definition given by Pollock and
Maitland in the Hist. of Engl. Law
(ed. 2), i, 282. The authors add the
following quotation from Madox: 'I
think there were not any honours created
de novo by feoffment in the reign of King
Henry III or perhaps of King John.'

18. For instance, the land of the honour
in Suffolk does not appear in one document (Cal. Inq. p.m. Edw. I, 210),
though it does in others of about the same
date (Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xi, App. vii,
139; Cal. Close, 1272–9, p. 538).

19. This was the case with certain Sussex
lands. The history of their connexion
with and separation from the honour is
given in Pat. 2 Jas. I, pt. xvii, m. 33–7.
Madame Inna Lubimenko in her careful
monograph on Jean de Bretagne has been
misled by the documents of her period
into including the Sussex lands in the
honour.

20. This conclusion is supported by the
fact that manors granted away were still
recognized as a part of the honour after
a lapse of many years. Hinton in
Cambridgeshire, for instance, was given
away in 1235, subject to the possibility
of return to the 'right heirs' (Cal. Chart.
R. 1226–57, p. 213), and in 1299 it was
still described as part of the honour of
Richmond (R. Gale, Reg. Honoris de
Richmond, App. Ixxxi). Individual manors
could, of course, be detached by forfeiture,
e.g. Costessy (Rolls of Parl. i, 77); cf.
also p. 10, n. 100 below. For a detailed
boundary of the lordship in the 17th century see Exch. Spec. Com. 15 Jas. I,
no. 4889.

21. He was long confused with his
cousin Alan Fergant, the son-in-law of
the Conqueror; cf. Dugdale, Baronage, i,
46, and Sir Henry Ellis, Introd. to Domesday, i, 366, n. 1. This confusion may have
been due to the fact that Alan Rufus
seems occasionally to have been called
Fergant; cf. E. A. Freeman, Norman
Conquest (ed. 1869), iii, 313, 314; Dugdale, Mon. v, 574. Gale says, however,
that he never found Alan Rufus called
Fergant except through confusion (Reg.
Honoris de Richmond, Introd. pp. i, ii).
That the Conqueror's son-in-law was a
son of Hoel (not of Eudes) and a duke
of Britanny is clear from a charter of
Constance his wife, and the epitaph of
Constance describes her as wife of Alan
Fergant and daughter of William King
of England (Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne,
ii, 124). That Alan Rufus, on the
other hand, was the son of Eudes is
shown by the register of Swavesey (Mon.
vi, 1001), and also by the account of the
foundation of St. Mary's Abbey, York,
written by Abbot Stephen (ibid. iii, 545).
A 15th-century genealogy of the lords
of Richmond gives a fairly satisfactory
account of Alan Rufus (ibid. v, 574).

23. Ibid. This is a rare but by no means
singular instance of two brothers bearing
the same name. Curiously enough it
occurs twice in the history of the lords of
Richmond (Dugdale, Mon. iii, 550; Cal.
Pat. 1313–17, p. 556; Cal. of Doc.
France, 426).

24. For doubts on this point see the
Rep. of the Lords' Com. on the Dignity of a
Peer (1826), iii, 123–4 and G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 343. It has been suggested that Stephen was the son and not
the brother of Alan Niger. There is
no need for another generation if Stephen
lived to be ninety, as it is suggested that
he did (R. Gale, op. cit. Introd. p. viii).
See also n. 28.

25. R. Gale, Reg. Honoris de Richmond,
Introd. p. viii; G.E.C. Complete Peerage,
vi, 344. His son Alan is mentioned,
under the title Earl of Richmond, as
taking part in the historical events of the
year 1139 by Simeon of Durham (Op.
Hist. [Rolls Ser.], ii, 307–8). The title
of earl is not contemporary, for the account
was clearly written at a later date.

31. Called so by John of Hexham (The
Priory of Hexham [Surt. Soc.], i, 124).
He, however, probably wrote after 1160,
so it is not quite a contemporary title
(ibid. Introd. p. cliv; cf. also Simeon of
Durham, op. cit. ii, 301).

32. See G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 345,
n. (a), and Mr. Round's Geoffrey de
Mandeville, 157, note 2, on this point.
His temporary charge of the county of
Cornwall may, however, have given him
the right to the title of earl.

33. Dugdale, Mon. v, 568–9; R. Gale,
op. cit. App. 100. A charter of his is
printed in the Mon. vi, 990, in which
he styles himself Earl of Cornwall and
Richmond, as well as Count of Britanny.
As it is dated 1140 and neither of the
former titles appears in the charters to
Richmond which are held to be of later
date, it looks as if they had been added
in some subsequent transcript.

37. The date of his mother's death.
His grandfather, Conan III, died in 1148.
Conan claimed the duchy shortly afterwards, but he had no real right to it
while his mother lived, even though she
apparently wished him to have it
(Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 149–54).

39. See the 15th-century genealogy of
the lords of the honour (Dugdale, Mon.
v, 574).

40. This style appears in his charters
to: the burgesses of Richmond (R. Gale,
op. cit. App. 101); Jervaulx (Dugdale,
Mon. v, 572); St. Martin's near Richmond
(ibid. iii, 602); Kirkstead (R. Gale, op.
cit. App. 103–4); and Mont St. Michel
(J. H. Round, Cal. of Doc. France, 273).
The lords of Richmond seem to have made
a distinction in their charters between the
name of the town 'Richmund,' or 'Richemont,' and the name of the surrounding
district or honour, 'Richmundia,' and constantly to have styled themselves earls of
the district. If this is so it affords a fresh
criticism of the early uses of the title Earl
of Richmond given above—cf. n. 25, 31,
32 and 33—since it is the name of the
town, not of the district, which is given
in each case.

41. G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 346.
Three years before his death his honour was
assessed for the aid for marrying the king's
daughter (Pipe R. 14 Hen. II [Pipe R.
Soc.], 23, 90, 103); and two years before
this he owed £227 10s. for serjeants in
Wales. He paid only £52 6s. 8d. of
this and was pardoned the rest (ibid.
11 Hen. II, 49; 13 Hen. II, 80).

46. The fact that the Pipe R. of 32
Hen. II contains a note of expenditure on
'work done at the king's houses at Richmond' is not in itself sufficient evidence
on this point, since that was the year of
Geoffrey's death and Henry may have
held the honour until the re-marriage
of Constance. But as there is good
reason for believing that Richard I and
John both held the castle the entry is
significant in the absence of conclusive
evidence that Constance ever forfeited the
honour (see below).

47. G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 347.
According to some accounts he died of
a fever (Dict. Nat. Biog.).

51. For documentary evidence see L. A.
Le Moyne de La Borderie, Recueils d'Actes
Inédits des Ducs et Princes de Bretagne, 129.
The fact of the marriage is also mentioned
by Hoveden (Chron. [Rolls Ser.], iv, 97).
For an account of Guy de Thouars see
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 347.

52. G.E.C. loc. cit. n. (e), 348 n. (e).
M. Le Moyne de La Borderie says that
she had three daughters by her third
marriage (Hist. de Bretagne, iii, 288).
Considering its short duration, 1199–
1201, this statement is not very convincing.

53. Former historians believed that
Richard held the honour and left it by will
to John (R. Gale, op. cit. Introd. p. xi;
Christ. Clarkson, Hist. and Antiq. of Richmond, Yorks. 25). The honour was not
accounted for in the Pipe Rolls of this
period as it should have been if in the
hands of the Crown. Constance was
assessed for the scutages of 1189 and 1193
(Pipe Rolls of 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 Ric. I et
seq.). In 1194 she was called to warrant
by a tenant of the honour who claimed
to have received his land from her and
from Earl Geoffrey (Rot. Cur. Reg. [Rec.
Com.], i, 56). Her court was mentioned
in the tenth year of Ric. I (Feet of F. 10
Ric. I [Pipe R. Soc.], 239), and she was
assessed for scutage in 1 John (Pipe R. 1
John [Yorks.]). Nevertheless the king
was taking a relief from one of her
tenants in Notts. early in 1200 (Rot. de
Oblatis et Fin. [Rec. Com.], 62).

54. John guaranteed the farms from lands
of the honour of Richmond, which he was
letting to farm (Rot. Lit. Pat. [Rec. Com.],
4). The king, however, evidently held
the castle and constabulary, for he was
taking a relief for the latter in the same
year, whether before or after the death
of the countess is not clear (Rot. de Oblatis
et Fin. [Rec. Com.], 137), cf. n. 69.

55. But Arthur was summoned to do
homage to his uncle, the king, in the
March following his mother's death
(Rymer, Foedera, i [1], 86).

56. This was probably his title after the
death of Constance. He called himself
'Comes Britannie' merely, and neither
Duke of Britanny nor Earl of Richmond
as he had previously done (L. A. Le Moyne
de La Borderie, Recueils d'Actes Inédits des
Ducs et Princes de Bretagne, 129, 137, 140,
152; P. H. Morice, Preuves, i, 815). Nor
did John speak of him as Earl of Richmond.
In the first document he calls him merely
Guy de Thouars, in the other two Guy de
Thouars at one time Count of Britanny
('comes Britannie' here means count in
all probability. The rulers of Britanny
were in the habit of styling themselves
dukes, but in England they were at this
time more frequently entitled 'Comes').
This change of title suggests that Guy
was merely guardian to his stepson Arthur
or a tenant at farm. He does not appear
to have held in right of his marriage, at
all events. Arthur is, indeed, said to
have done homage for Britanny and his
other lands in his mother's lifetime (Roger
Hoveden, Chron. [Rolls Ser.], iv, 115;
Walter of Coventry, Hist. Coll. [Rolls
Ser.], ii, 160; G.E.C. Complete Peerage,
vi, 348).

57. Red Bk. of Exch. (Rolls Ser.), 164.
It comes under the thirteenth year and
the fifth is suggested as an alternative.
Neither, however, fits in.

61. Rot. de Liberate (Rec. Com.), 63.
If Guy de Thouars held only as the
guardian of Arthur he would naturally
lose the honour when the heir died.
Except in so far as she appears under the
title 'heirs of Britanny' there is no
recognition of the claim of Arthur's
sister Eleanor to succeed him. The
'heirs of Britanny' are mentioned on two
occasions between 1206 and 1210. In
1206 Wigan de Hartforth (see Gilling
parish) claimed that they ought to
warrant a charter which he had received
from Earl Conan (Rot. de Oblatis et Fin.
[Rec. Com.], 351); and in 1210 Ranulf
son of Robert claimed to hold charters
from the 'heirs of Britanny' (Abbrev. Plac.
[Rec. Com.], 74). John may have been
professing to hold as their guardian during
this period. He and Henry III kept the
eldest, Eleanor of Anjou, in prison. She
died a captive in 1241 (Chron. of the
Reigns of Edw. I and Edw. II [Rolls
Ser.], i, 38). The other two were in
Britanny with their father, Guy de
Thouars.

62. Rot. de Liberate (Rec. Com.), 63.
The castle of Richmond and the things
which belonged to the custody of the
castle and the castle of Bowes were
excepted. He was granted his scutage,
however (cf. Pipe R. 5 John [Yorks.]).

64. At least his Richmondshire lands
(Rot. Lit. Pat. [Rec. Com.], 47–8). For
John's retention of the rest see Rot. de
Liberate (Rec. Com.), 84; Rot. Lit. Claus.
i, 59; Rot. de Oblatis et Fin. (Rec. Com.),
369. Early in 1205, moreover, the men
of Boston undertook to answer to the
Exchequer for the honour of Richmond
in Holland as they had been accustomed
to account to the Count of Britanny
(Pipe R. 6 John [Lincs.]).

65. Rot. Lit. Pat. (Rec. Com.), 51. The
'G. Comes Britanniae' mentioned in this
document as the former owner has been
held to be Geoffrey (Dict. Nat. Biog).
But previous evidence suggests that he
may have been Guy de Thouars, see
n. 56.

67. He was not only one of the wit
nesses to Magna Carta on the king's side,
but he appears to have been faithful to
him to the end, and he was certainly
present at the coronation of Henry III
(Dict. Nat. Biog.); cf., however, Stubbs,
Const. Hist. (ed. 6), i, 581–3, which suggests
that there was a moment of infidelity.

68. He rendered account for the sixth
scutage of John (Pipe R. 7, 10 & 11
John [Yorks.]); and he was quit by writ
for the seventh scutage (ibid. 8 John),
and for the scutage of Scotland (ibid.
13 John). In the ninth year of John,
moreover, he rendered account of scutage
for a moiety of the honour of Richmond
(Red Bk. of Exch. [Rolls Ser.], 749).
See also the king's orders to him respecting the castle (Rymer, Foedera, i
[1], 141).

69. Roald the Constable paid a sum into
the Exchequer for the custody of the castle
in 1207–8 (Pipe R. 9 John); cf. above
n. 46, 62.

70. The Pipe Rolls of 10 & 11 John
indicate that these lands were in the
possession of the Crown at that date.
In Yorks. the Constable of Richmond
Castle and Henry of Ravensworth were
separately assessed for scutage.

71. Peter is often, but it seems erroneously, called de Dreux (G.E.C. Complete
Peerage, vi, 349). He was also surnamed
Mauclerc. He was a younger son of
Robert II, Count of Dreux and Braine.
The Bretons having refused to accept
Eleanor, Arthur's sister of the whole blood,
as their ruler while she was John's prisoner
at Bristol, the next heir her half-sister
Alice succeeded. In 1212 Philip Augustus
of France betrothed Alice to his kinsman
Peter de Braine, and in the following
year Peter did homage for Britanny and
was recognized as its duke (L. A. Le
Moyne de La Borderie, Hist. de Bretagne,
iii, 292–8). Guy de Thouars retired into
private life and made no further claim
to Britanny or to Richmond after the
marriage of his daughter, and he died in
1213 (Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 199).
Peter de Braine is frequently styled Count
or Earl of Britanny in English documents,
but he called himself Duke of Britanny in
his charters and will be so styled here.
In the majority of his charters he appears
also to have used the title Earl of Richmond ('Richemundia') (Le Moyne de
La Borderie, Recueils d'Actes Inédits des
Ducs et Princes de Bretagne, 156–82). He
appears as Peter de Dreus or Drous in
the (Lincs., Norf. and Suff.) Pipe Roll of
2 Hen. III.

73. Pipe R. 2 Hen. III. In the Lincolnshire portion of the roll the partition is
said to have been made between the Earl
of Chester and Peter; in the Norfolk
and Suffolk account between the king
and Peter, John keeping thirty fees in his
own hands. From this it is clear that
the division was the same as that in the
following reign (see below).

80. This was done in Lincs., Norf.,
Suff., Derby, Cambs., Herts., Notts. and
Northants, and probably elsewhere (Rot.
Lit. Claus. [Rec. Com.], i, 360, 361, 379,
404). The compensation which the
Earl of Chester subsequently received
(see below) indicates that a revaluation
with a view to a more equitable division
was in progress.

83. Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i, 385.
He seems to have had seisin of some
lands in the counties of Lincs. and Cambs.
in 1218 (ibid. 357, 358). The counties
mentioned in 1219 include besides :
Norf., Suff., Notts. and Hertford.

90. Rot. Lit. Claus. (Rec. Com.), ii, 72.
The castle in question was the castle of
Chateauceaux, and its owner had apparently 'conducted himself for fifteen years
as a pirate and brigand rather than as a
man of birth and honour' (P. H. Morice,
Hist. de Bretagne, i, 152).

93. Though the mandate only mentions
land in Lincoln, Cambridge, Herts., Norfolk and Suffolk (Rot. Lit. Claus [Rec.
Com.], ii, 36), the Richmondshire portion
was said to belong to the Duke of Britanny
when it was re-granted to the Earl of
Chester in 1227 (Cal. Pat. 1225–32,
p. 124). But it is not clear when and
how Ranulf had been deprived of it. It
is probable that Richmondshire was
called part of the Duke of Britanny's
property because it was part of his wife's
inheritance and that the grant to the
Earl of Chester was merely one of the
confirmations by which Henry III made
so much money at this date (Stubbs,
Const. Hist. [ed. 4], ii, 40). Ranulf
originally held by the gift of John, but
the partition of the honour during Henry's
minority may have been thought to need
confirmation.

96. This assertion has been made by
two historians of Richmond: R. Gale,
Reg. Honoris de Richmond, Introd. p. xiv;
Christ. Clarkson, Hist. and Antiq. of
Richmond, 27, and it has even found its
way into the biography of Richard Earl
of Cornwall (Dict. Nat. Biog.). It is based
on a statement by Roger of Wendover
(copied apparently by Matthew Paris)
that Richard received the lands of his
mother's dower and the lands of the
Count of Britanny (Matt. Paris, Chron.
Maj. [Rolls Ser.], iii, 125; Roger of
Wendover, Chron. [Rolls Ser.], ii,
322). But no such grant appears in the
Patent, Close or Charter Rolls of this
year, nor does the subsequent history of
the honour confirm the story in any
way. No other evidence to show that
Richard ever held any of the Duke
of Britanny's lands has been found. In
August 1227, however, he did receive
from the king the land which had formed
part of his mother's dower, together with
the lands of the Count of Dreux (Rot.
Lit. Claus [Rec. Com.], ii, 197–8), lands
which were not even in the same counties
as those of the honour of Richmond
(ibid. 164, 189; Cal. Pat. 1225–32,
pp. 129, 191). He received a similar
grant in February 1230–1 (Cal. Chart. R.
1226–57, p. 129). Cf. p. 4, n. 71.

100. Rot. Lit. Claus (Rec. Com.), ii, 200.
This was in September and in October.
Wissett, Suff., Swaffham, Norf., and an
annual rent from the sokemen of Holand
were committed to various persons (ibid.
202, 203).

101. The order to give the duke seisin
was addressed to the Sheriff of Yorks
(Cal. Close, 1227–31, p. 355). But he
did not apparently have seisin of the
manor and castle of Bowes until February
1232–3 (Cal. Pat. 1232–47, p. 10).

106. His wife, the duchess Alice, had
died in 1221 (P. H. Morice, Hist. de
Bretagne, i, 149).

107. Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 253;
La Borderie, La Bretagne aux Grands
Siècles du Moyenâge, 134. Ranulf Earl
of Chester died in 1232 (Matt. Paris,
Chron. Maj. [Rolls Ser.], iii, 229). His
widow seems to have held some of the
lands of the honour in dower (Cal. Pat.
1247–58, p. 33). The author of the
'Additions to Dugdale's Baronage' expresses the opinion that Peter must
have died before the petition of his son
for the honour of Richmond (Coll. Topog.
et Gen. vi, 247), but Hen. III couples
him with his son in his reply (Foedera, i
[I], 250).

112. To hold to Peter and his heirs (Cal.
Chart. R. 1226–57, p. 252). The grant
included land of the honour in the counties
of York., Linc., Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambs.
and Herts. The manor of Aldborough
in Richmondshire was not, however,
granted until 1247 (ibid. 327).

113. He also received the castle (ibid. 259).
It is not clear whether Peter de Braine had
ever held the castle or not, but he possibly
received it when the whole honour was
given to him.

117. Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), i (1),
260. There is no evidence that the
money was paid, and in La Borderie's
opinion it was not intended that it should
be paid before the marriage. The valuation was to be made after it had taken
place (Yorks. Inq. [Yorks. Arch. Soc.], i,
129–31).

133. Hinton in Cambs. was not restored,
nor apparently the manors in Norfolk
and Suffolk in exchange for which Peter
of Savoy had received the honour, castle
and rape of Hastings. For these Henry III
promised him compensation (R. Gale,
op. cit. App. p. 141).

135. Eulogium Hist. (Rolls Ser.), iii, 136.
On condition that service should be
done by his men (Cal. Pat. 1272–81,
p. 316).

136. Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 277;
G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 352. The
author of the 'Additions to Dugdale's
Baronage' (Coll. Topog. et Gen. vi, 249)
in correcting a mistake of Dugdale and
others falls into the error of ante-dating
the death of John I of Britanny. He
attributes an inquisition of 1285 to him.
It is not, however, an inquisition postmortem, but an extent of his son's lands
(Cal. Inq. p.m. Edw. I, 342).

138. If Dugdale confused the first two
Johns of Britanny, later writers were
equally incapable of distinguishing between
John II and his son. It has been not
infrequently asserted that the former took
the part of the English when the war
began (e.g. G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi,
352; Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 283;
Le Moyne de La Borderie, Hist. de
Bretagne, iii, 360; Morice, Hist. de
Bretagne, i, 214; Coll. Topog. et Gen. vi,
249). There can be little doubt that he
was faithful to the King of France
throughout (Cal. Pat. 1292–1301, pp. 126,
181, 207, 221, 296, 327, 330, 334).
On this point see also M. Bémont, Roles
Gascons, iii, Introd. 62–9; and Mme.
Inna Lubimenko, Jean de Bretagne, Comte
de Richmond, 6.

156. Rymer, Foedera (Rec. Com.), ii (1),
648–9; Cal. Close, 1323–7, p. 625;
1327–30, p. 260; the order to deliver
the issues from his lands was not, however, executed until the following reign
(ibid. 1327–30, p. 27). These facts do
not bear out the statement that he was a
party to a plot against the lives of the
queen and prince (Walsingham, op. cit.
i, 179). But if Edward II proposed it
John may have betrayed it (Capgrave,
Chron. [Rolls Ser.], 194). This would
explain his desertion of Edward and
friendship with the queen. But cf. Mme.
Inna Lubimenko on this point, Jean de
Bretagne, 112–14.

165. Ibid. 1337–9, pp. 122, 553; 1339–
41, p. 93. Lobineau, however, says that
Edward III took the honour from him
because of his attachment to France in
order to give it to Robert d'Artois (Hist.
de Bretagne, i, 309); cf. Froissart, Chron.
i, 227. But no confirmation of these statements has been found in the Cal. of Pat.

180. Chart. R. 46 Edw. III, m. 5. See
also Cal. Pat. The duke's alliance with
England appears to have been very unpopular in Britanny and he was compelled to seek refuge in England in 1373
(Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i, 406).

185. G.E.C. Complete Peerage, vi, 355.
He was recalled to Britanny, it appears,
in 1379 (Lobineau, Hist. de Bretagne, i,
422), and made a treaty with Charles V
in January 1381, and did homage to him
in September of the same year (ibid.
437–9, 442).

186. Cal. Pat. 1381–5, p. 51. But in
September of this year the duchess was
appointing an official in Cheshunt (ibid.
p. 308).

187. Ibid. pp. 285, 297; Lobineau, Hist.
de Bretagne, i, 440–4. The Duke of
Britanny had already sent to England to
recall the duchess, who had been detained
by Richard II, and to ask for the return
of Richmond and Brest. He was informed
that the former had been confiscated because he had done homage to the King of
France and that for the latter he had
received an exchange (ibid.).

197. Cal. Pat. 1391–6, pp. 68, 101, 105,
217. This confiscation was doubtless
due to the Treaty of Tours between the
King of France and the Duke of Britanny,
26 Jan. 1392 (Lobineau, Hist. de
Bretagne, i, 476).

203. Cal. Pat. 1396–9, p. 574. The
grant is said to have been made to
John Duke of Britanny, Joan his
sister, Anthony Ricz and Nicholas Alderwych. Yet the Letters Patent by which
a constable of the castle was appointed
were in the names of Joan, Anthony and
Nicholas alone (ibid. 1399–1401, p. 546).

204. John Duke of Britanny died early in
November following (G.E.C. Complete
Peerage, vi, 355).

205. Cal. Pat. 1399–1401, p. 24. In
spite of a petition of the Commons that
it might be given to the Duke of Britanny
(Trokelowe, Annales [Rolls Ser.], 311).
Provision for outstanding claims or leases
was made in this grant. Members of the
house of Britanny still, however, assumed
the title of Earl of Richmond, and a
request for the restoration of the honour
was made as late as 1442 (Capgrave,
Chron. [Rolls Ser.], 312; Proc. of P.C.
[Rec. Com.], i, 6, 17, 37).

206. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Yorks.), 4 Hen. VI,
no. 37. There is a strange story that it
was granted to the Earl of Dunbar in
1400 (Eulogium Hist. [Rolls Ser.], iii,
387, 414).

207. Cal. Pat. 1413–16, p. 259; Parl. R.
iv, 41. The manor of Bainbridge and the
free chase of Wensleydale were excepted
from the grant, Henry IV having released
all right to them to Ralph and his heirs
and assigns in 1413 (Cal. Pat. 1408–13,
p. 467; 1413–16, p. 259).

229. He was appointing officers and
granting issues or annuities from it
throughout this period (Cal. Pat. 1476–
85, pp. 70, 87, 119, 142, 157,
159, 179, 247, 258, 310). There are
also accounts for this time (Duchy of
Lanc. Mins. Accts. Yorks. bdle. 639,
no. 10379, 10380).

231. Henry's mother Margaret Countess
of Richmond was also attainted and deprived of her lands, but in consideration
of his 'fidelity' her husband Lord Stanley
was permitted to hold them for life (Parl.
R. vi, 245, 250). After the accession of
Henry VII she held part of the honour
in dower (Mat. for a Hist. of Hen. VII
[Rolls Ser.], ii, 130; De Banco R. Hil.
9 Hen. VII, m. 250).

238. He received the site of the castle
and its walls, the pond or moat, and all
land and tenements within the walls and
the whole bank from the castle to the
Swale, except castle-ward rents and suit
at the court and liberties and services of
the said castle concerning houses between
the town and castle and the castle and
the Swale (MSS. of the borough; Pat.
27 Chas. II, pt. iii, no. 32).

239. Quarters for non-commissioned officers, the property of the War Office,
were built in the castle yard in 1857,
while the keep served as a storehouse
for militia uniforms and weapons.

241. The Earl of Chester was assessed
for 40½ fees in Richmondshire, the Constable of Richmond for 6½, and Henry
son of Harvey for 3 (Pipe R. 10, 11 &
13 John [Yorks.]). The grant of Richmondshire to the Earl of Chester gives
the number of fees held by Henry
as 3¼, but Henry only acknowledged
responsibility for 3 (Rot. Lit. Pat. [Rec.
Com.], 51).

255. After the eldest son, the eldest
daughter had the right to succeed, and
failing either son or daughter the next of kin
(Exch. Dep. Mich. 27 & 28 Eliz. m. 36).
A tenant could only grant away his tenement, except for life and six years after
his death, by licence (Exch. Dep. East.
16 Jas. I, no. 17). It was said that
the tenants had bequeathed their tenements to whichever of their children
they pleased before the commission of
Elizabeth, but whether they had or had
not a right to do so was unknown (Exch.
Dep. East. 37 Eliz. no. 24).

261. According to the confirmation of
Henry II, Alan Rufus was the donor
(Dugdale, Mon. iii, 548), but it is curious
in that case that Richmond is not mentioned in the confirmation of William II
(ibid. 547). If not granted by Alan Rufus
it was given by Stephen (ibid. 548).